Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:02:05 -0500EditMySiteThu, 19 Mar 2015 15:17:15 GMThttp://www.sugarpub.com/features/-asga-meeting-highlightsAbout 350 growers, spouses and affiliated industry personnel gathered in Long Beach, Calif., on February 1-3 for the American Sugarbeet Growers Association’s 2015 annual meeting. While there was a slowdown still in effect at the nearby ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, it was “full speed ahead” for the ASGA agenda. On these pages, we provide photos and message highlights of several invited speaker presentations, as well as a summary of Wyoming grower and ASGA President John Snyder’s closing remarks (page 11). The 2016 ASGA annual meeting is scheduled for February 7-9 in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Serving with Snyder on the ASGA Executive Committee is Vice President Galen Lee of Idaho. Current chairmen and vice chairmen, respectively, of other ASGA committees are as follows:

The always-popular Jim Wiesemeyer, senior vice president at Informa Economics, returned again to the ASGA meeting to discuss the political and agricultural outlook for the coming year. Wiesemeyer’s wide-ranging presentation addressed U.S. and world economies; “wild cards” such as Russia, Iran, the U.S. budget and the debt limit; House, Senate, state and presidential elections; President Obama’s State of the Union address; energy topics like the Keystone Pipeline and the Renewable Fuels Standard; the possibility of significant tax reform; farm policy — both the current farm bill and next one; and trade, including TPA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Cuba and the Mexico-U.S. sugar situation. Wiesemeyer stressed that the U.S. is the “growth engine” for the global economy. With 60-70% of U.S. growth coming from consumer spending, sustaining strong consumer confidence is key to the sustainability of growth in annual gross domestic product. Why is an effective safety net for agriculture still so important? Wiesemeyer ticked off several reasons, including the prospect of higher interest rates, a higher U.S. dollar’s effect on exports, the possibility of higher crop yields in 2015, lower prices (depending on carryover levels), and such barometers as land values and cash rents. “We need some shared responsibility” between the two major parties in Washington, D.C., Wiesemeyer stated, adding that he actually was “a little more upbeat than I was a year ago” regarding the possibility of Republicans and Democrats cooperatively getting some substantive work done. “Sugar will be the least of peoples’ concerns” this fall, he suggested, given the large web of issues on lawmakers’ plates.

As of 2008, all restrictions on sugar trade between the U.S. and Mexico were eliminated under the terms of NAFTA. As of 2014, however, the two nations were caught up in a difficult trade dispute. At its center is the merging of two very different marketing systems. Craig Ruffolo, vice president of Oakland, Calif., market intelligence firm McKeany-Flavell, educated the ASGA audience on how the Mexican sugar market is structured and functions, as compared to the U.S. system, and how those differences have contributed to the problems existing as of 2014/15. Not surprisingly, it comes down to “following the money.” While U.S. sugar producers have ready access to credit through banks, their Mexican counterparts are, on average, small-acreage growers who do not have such access and cannot finance their own crop inputs. Thus, the sugar mills must do so — which in turn complicates their own cash flow. The mills then often look to trade houses for a needed infusion of capital, sometimes cutting deals at price levels they normally would not entertain. Ultimately, that means their customers must prepay for sugar — a basic departure from how the U.S. seller-buyer system works. The U.S. is a net sugar-importing country, Ruffolo reminded his audience, with actual import needs fluctuating somewhat from year to year, depending upon domestic beet and cane sugar output. While imports of Mexican sugar beyond their Tariff Rate Quota allocation alleviate the supply crunch, higher levels of imports also simultaneously pressure U.S. market prices — which ultimately led to the U.S. sugar industry’s antidumping and countervailing duty cases against Mexico, filed last year. “Managed trade could help control U.S. market price volatility,” Ruffolo observed. The dilemma comes in being able to manage that trade in a way that is not particularly injurious to the sugar industries of either nation. Unless the lack of security in the Mexican sector (i.e., absence of ag loans to farmers or mill operators) is changed, it will be difficult to bring these two markets closer (integrated) without some form of a managed market, he concluded.

Bob Cassidy, sugar industry legal counsel with the Washington law firm Cassidy, Levy & Winton LLP, traced the timeline of the U.S. industry’s antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases against Mexico, for which petitions were initially filed in March 2014. He updated the ASGA audience on developments since then, including the December announcement by the U.S. Department of Commerce that it had finalized agreements with the Mexican government and that nation’s sugar exporters to suspend AD and CVD investigations on U.S. imports of Mexican sugar. Two U.S. cane sugar refiners — Imperial Sugar and AmCane — requested the U.S. International Trade Commission to determine whether the AD and CVD suspension agreements completely eliminate the injurious effect of the dumped and subsidized imports. The agreements remain in effect during that review, with the ITC being required to make its decision by late March.

Barb Fecso is sugar program manager with the Sweeteners Analysis Staff of USDA’s Farm Service Agency. Her focus is administering the domestic sugar program, providing guidance in the formulation and implementation of national sugar policies and procedures, and working on economic and budgetary impact analysis of programs relating to sugar and honey. Along with comments about the priorities and challenges of administering the sugar program, Fecso also spent some time discussing the antidumping and countervailing duty case with Mexico. “The only way the suspension agreement works is if there is [satisfactory] monitoring and compliance,” she noted.

Don Phillips, trade advisor for the American Sugar Alliance since 2002, spoke on “Trade Horizon: 2015.” Much of his presentation centered on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which he termed “the flagship trade agreement of the Obama Administration.” TPP is the only international trade negotiation likely to be completed this year, Phillips said. Twelve countries have participated in TPP negotiations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the Asian nations of Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Its 22 chapters encompass a broad range of issues, including ag market access, textiles, intellectual property, labor and the environment. Regarding sugar specifically, the biggest issue is market access insisted upon by Australia — the only major TPP exporter of sugar. Michael Froman, the U.S. Trade Representative, has signaled a need for some flexibility on that issue, but simultaneously indicates he is not inclined to undercut the U.S. sugar program in the process. The American Sugar Alliance is monitoring TPP very closely, Phillips said, noting that the Obama Administration would like to conclude negotiations by mid-year. Phillips also briefly updated his ASGA audience on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the proposed free trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union. He termed TTIP as “highly controversial in the EU [but] not yet on the U.S. radar screen.” There are huge differences in agriculture and regulatory areas, he noted, with neither the U.S. nor EU sugar industries being favorable toward TTIP.

As to the interminable WTO, very little is likely to transpire in 2015, Phillips said, though the ASA will continue to monitor it.

Texan Larry Combest served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1985 to 2003 and was House Agriculture Committee chairman from 1999 to 2003. He now is a partner in the lobbying/consulting firm of Combest, Sell & Associates, one of whose clients is the American Sugar Alliance. Combest recapped the 2014 elections, noting that the big congressional gains by Republicans resulted in the lowest number of House seats being held by Democrats since 1928 — and, a tie for the lowest number of Democratic Senate seats during that same 86-year period.

In his comments on implications of the 2014 elections for rural America and the future of farm policy, Combest emphasized that it remains “vitally important” for ag groups to work on building coalitions. While he praised the sugar sector’s track record, not every segment of ag was equally focused on coalition development during the last farm bill, he said. “Nobody can do it better than the people you have working for you” in Washington, he told his audience. “You are to be commended for sugar’s effectiveness in D.C.”

“Redefining and Reclaiming the GM Conversation” was the topic of Karil Kochenderfer’s presentation at the 2015 ASGA annual meeting. Kochenderfer, principal in the Washington area-based consultancy firm LINKAGES, formerly led the Grocery Manufacturers of America’s national and international program on biotechnology for several years. “We benefit from biotechnology in every aspect of our daily lives” — from medicine to textiles, from biofuels to foods, Kochenderfer emphasized. The consensus within the global scientific community, she added, is that “GMOs are as safe as their conventional counterparts.” Plus, their use contributes major benefits, such as reduced crop loss due to weeds and insects, reduced use of pesticides, lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduced nitrogen loadings to waterways — and enhanced product quantity and quality, coupled with enhanced producer “quality of life.” However, Kochenderfer added, proponents of GMOs have fallen short in one key category: communications. Opponents have successfully convinced millions upon millions of people that GMOs are inherently harmful, despite what the science says, thus creating a climate of fear. She encouraged her ASGA listeners to become part of the “redefining and reclaiming” of the GM conversation. When speaking with fellow citizens, local media and other entities, acknowledge their concerns, but politely yet firmly “stand your ground,” Kochenderfer said.

Laura Rutherfordand her husband, Roy, live and farm in northeastern North Dakota, producing sugarbeets, soybeans, dry beans and wheat. She has become a national spokesperson and blogger for the beet sugar industry on the safety of and need for biotechnology — especially as it relates to sugarbeet producers. Rutherford spoke to the ASGA audience on the topic “The Sweet Truth About Genetically Engineered Food.” Following an overview of the history of plant breeding — from selective breeding through mutagenesis to genetic engineering — Rutherford outlined the regulatory process that genetically modified crops must go through, as well as the various scientific groups that support genetic engineering. She then turned to sugarbeets specifically, pointing out that extensive testing has shown that the sugar from Roundup Ready® beets is identical to that from conventional sugarbeets. “Consumers want safe, nutritious and affordable food,” she summarized, adding that “no credible evidence exists linking a food safety or health risk to the consumption of GE foods.” Rutherford highlighted four major challenges for food production and emphasized the role of GE crops in meeting those challenges: (1) a fast-growing global population, (2) climate change, i.e., greenhouse gas emissions, (3) competition for water, and (4) limited land area and fewer farmers.

Rutherford encouraged those interested in scientific information on genetically engineered crops to visit the websites www.gmoanswers.com, www.academicsreview.org and www.cast-science.org. She also is on the Sugar Industry Biotech Council: www.sugarindustrybiotechcouncil.org.

David Shaw (Mississippi State University) and George Frisvold (University of Arizona) are not from sugarbeet states. But their presentation — titled “Resistance Weeds Are a ‘Wicked Problem’ ” — certainly resonated with their ASGA audience, given the sugarbeet industry’s obvious interest in glyphosate resistance. By “wicked,” Shaw and Frisvold were referencing problems that have no clearly definitive formulation or solution set, no clearcut “true/false” or “good/bad” answers. There are multiple potential, viable causes; plus, an intolerance for ineffective solutions. The number of U.S. acres with glyphosate-resistant weed populations nearly doubled from 2010 to 2012, Frisvold noted. He characterized the herbicide resistance evolution as a biology problem, a technology problem — and, a human problem (i.e., human behavior). Understanding the socioeconomic dimensions of the problem and moving toward more systems-based solutions were two areas of exploration at the Herbicide Resistance Summit II, hosted by the Weed Science Society of America last September in Washington. “You as the producer are at the center of the weed management community,” Shaw emphasized to his ASGA listeners, pointing out that farmers are the final decision makers. He encouraged producers to continually increase their understanding of resistance, to pay more attention to details (such as post-treatment monitoring, controlling escapes and post-harvest control when needed). Taking a more longterm view of operations is paramount, he added, i.e., developing multi-year, system-wide stewardship plans. Commodity and farm organizations likewise have a very important role to play, Shaw and Frisvold emphasized. They encourage such groups to form strategic alliances across crops and across geographic regions to better influence on legislation and ag-related agencies. In the final analysis, the herbicide resistance problem “will only be managed through the combined efforts of all parties involved,” they stressed: growers, industry, universities, retailers, dealers, consultants, commodity groups, government, landowners and more. A sugarbeet pilot project is actually being formulated to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. Developed under the auspices of ASGA (and with Frisvold and Shaw as members of the advisory group), the project will employ a community approach, exploring how to effectively engage, educate and change farmer behavior to embrace and implement best management practices (BMP) to delay the onset and/or progression of herbicide resistance in diverse sugarbeet production areas. The pilot is focusing on beet locales in Idaho, Minnesota and Michigan, working with groups of growers in a contiguous area. The goal is to develop and implement community strategies for preventing or mitigating the evolution of herbicide resistance. (Watch for discussion of this project in future issues of The Sugarbeet Grower.)

Andy Briscoe, president and CEO of The Sugar Association, Inc., brought along the football helmet that he keeps in his Washington, D.C., office. The reason? “This helmet reminds me of the need to always stay on the offense,” he informed his ASGA listeners. The Sugar Association’s primary focus areas are, Briscoe noted: (1) the promotion of sugar; (2) accuracy in labeling to help consumers understand what is sweetening their foods or beverages, and (3) responding to the disparagement of sugar. Meeting those objectives involves a variety of programs in the arenas of science, public policy and public relations. “Basically, we’re talking about fighting back against the attacks on sugar,” Briscoe said. Under The Sugar Association’s programmatic strategy “umbrella” fall activities such as monitoring all nutrition science directly and indirectly to sugar; consumer and health professional education; defending sugar in all federal nutrition policy and food labeling initiatives; dispelling myths about sugar; a proactive defense of sugar in the media; and, finally, sugar promotion via social marketing.

In the end, The Sugar Association’s key messages boil down to: (1) Sugar is all natural. (2) Sugar has just 15 calories per teaspoon. (3) Sugar is an important ingredient that has been used safely for more than 2,000 years. (4) Sugar is a sweetener you can actually pronounce, not a “chemical soup alphabet.”Read our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

One word stood out during John Snyder’s presidential address prior to the close of the 2015 American Sugarbeet Growers Association annual meeting: Action.

“Annual meetings are a time of reflection and planning,” the Wyoming grower and ASGA president noted. “How do we see ourselves, and how do others perceive us? What is our reputation? What is our mission? “After reflecting on those questions, it boils down to one word: ‘ACTION.’ Without action, nothing gets done. But as farmers, ‘ACTION’ best describes who we are. We get lots of things done, both individually and collectively. The world needs us.” Here’s how Snyder broke down this word from his ASGA perspective, letter by letter:

• A = Attitude and Accountability — “We must face every challenge and opportunity with a strong and positive attitude, which is the well of positive energy we must draw from when we face obstacles. As leaders and members of a great commodity organization, we are accountable to ourselves, our families, to each other as members of cooperatives, our communities — and the food security of our nation.” • C = Competence, Confidence and Communication — “We have to be smart to navigate the many environments that we work in. We work hard to understand all of the complexities of international trade agreements. We are committed to learning every day. If we are competent, we will have the confidence to lead and influence. As leaders, we must be able to communicate with and educate others so they, in turn, will take the action that is needed to solve our problems.” • T = Tenacious — “The sugar world is not for the faint of heart. If you are going to work in this arena, you have to be rock solid at local, state, national and international levels. You have to work through, go over, around or under whatever obstacle that may get in your way, blazing new trails where others are either unwilling or unable to go. You have to think out of the box, take calculated risks, block out fear of failure and avoid the trap of ‘paralysis by analysis.’ ” • I = I, You and I Individually — “Not someone else. I need to raise my hand to help, speak up when needed, and lend a helping hand to others who lead. As they say, ‘If it’s going to be, it’s up to me.’ My life and my voice will make a difference in the future of this industry. The best example of this is Laura Rutherford, who has stepped up to help this industry, tell our message to the world and inspire others to join her in educating those who are confused or misinformed about biotechnology.” • O = Own It — “Whatever the issue is, we need to own it, manage it and take care of it. For decades, our growers and processors were not always on the same page — until we bought our companies. As owners, we do things differently because we find incentives that make us, and keep us, world-class producers. Likewise, we own our trade policy, sugar policy, risk management tools and biotechnology issues, which we must manage and care for.” • N = Never Give Up, Not Now, Not Later — “It is why the U.S. sugar industry is where it is today: because we never give up. It’s countless legal conference calls with the top people in the beet and cane industries, working on solutions. It’s sitting eyeball-to-eyeball with the negotiators at [the Department of] Commerce to communicate the concerns and burdens of every beet grower in the nation.”Prior to adjournment, Snyder encouraged his fellow ASGA members to remain proud of who they are and what they represent. “Remember, this industry does not beg for a handout from the American taxpayers; but we do demand a level playing field against global competition that is entrenched in subsidies and dumping,” he stated. “At our core, that is our mission and our message.

“I am both excited about the future of this industry,” Snyder concluded, “and am committed to make it better and stronger for us today — and for our sons and daughters in the years ahead."

Tom Peters is by no means a clone of Michael J. Fox (aka Marty McFly). But he does have a “Back to the Future” focus right now that he hopes will be bought into by increasing numbers of Upper Midwest sugarbeet growers. Peters, Fargo-based extension agronomist-sugarbeet and weed science for North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota, is hoping to bolster weed control in sugarbeets by taking a system-wide approach to the issue. In other words, he believes that in these days of increasing resistance to glyphosate and certain other herbicides, producers can take a big step toward satisfactory weed control in their beet fields by reviewing and modifying their weed management programs in other rotational crops, such as corn, soybeans and small grains.Read our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

Waterhemp control from Verdict at 5 fl oz/A, followed by Basagran at 1 pt/A in soybean at Herman, 2014. - Photo by Tom Peters

That’s hardly a new concept, Peters knows. Indeed, it was an important component in the success of the microrate program conceived by Peters’ wellknown predecessor and mentor, Alan Dexter, in the 1990s. But it’s an approach that receded in the minds of many sugarbeet growers after 2008 — the first year that Roundup Ready® sugarbeets were produced commercially in most U.S. sugarbeet regions. The use of pre-emergent herbicides and other previously popular “post” products declined sharply as producers quickly embraced the simplicity and benefits of a glyphosate-based weed management program. It’s not quite that simple anymore for many growers, of course, given the glyphosate resistance (Peters prefers the term “weeds management”) issues that have arisen — from waterhemp in southern Minnesota to horseweed in Michigan and kochia in several western beet states. Numerous producers have already jumped back into the use of pre’s along with other post herbicides to assist with tough weeds in their beet fields, and others are taking a hard look at doing so. That by no means indicates the Roundup Ready system is in retreat; simply that weed scientists and growers in a number of areas realize it needs supplementation.

“In many cases, other rotation crops offer the farmer the advantage of using a unique brand of herbicides or herbicides that are not used in sugarbeet,” Peters points out. “My thought is to use that to our advantage — to use that diversity of herbicides as a way of reducing the spread of resistant weeds.” Peters began to actively address this “Back to the Future” approach in 2014, establishing research sites at Herman, Minn., and Barney, N.D., in the southern Red River Valley. The objective was to achieve optimum control of waterhemp (Herman) and kochia (Barney) in corn and soybeans by utilizing a systems approach based on five premises: (1) It is not reliant upon Roundup Ready technology. (2) It provides greater than 90% visual control of waterhemp and kochia on a season-long basis. (3) It utilizes herbicides from families grouped by modes of action that complement herbicides used in other crops within the cropping sequence, including sugarbeet. (4) It employs herbicides with appropriate rotation restrictions, thus allowing corn, soybean and sugarbeet to be planted within the same sequence. (5) It considers per-acre weed control costs, including the cost of the seed — i.e., profitability.

A full listing of the corn and soybean herbicides evaluated at the two sites in 2014 can be seen in a report by Peters being posted at www.sbreb.org (the website of the Sugarbeet Research and Education Board of North Dakota and Minnesota). Below are several highlights of what transpired last season at Herman and Barney. Within the range of herbicides evaluated were preemergent, postemergent, and pre + post products. In addition to efficacy, treatments were selected based on herbicide site of action and chemical family, as well as crop rotation restrictions — and cost. The corn planted at both locations was a Roundup Ready hybrid; the soybean was a Liberty Link® variety.

Tom Peters

Weed Control in Corn --

A number of herbicide treatments provided between 90 to 100% control of green foxtail, waterhemp, lambsquarters and redroot pigweed at canopy closure in the corn.

However, the Barney site, which had a very heavy infestation of kochia in 2013, had a very light kochia infestation — but heavy lambsquarters and redroot pigweed infestations — in 2014. “This emphasizes the importance of scouting and identifying weeds in fields and matching the observed weeds with the appropriate herbicide — especially in the case of post herbicides,” Peters observes.

Visual assessment of soybean growth reduction and weed control in soybean was conducted at various times during the growing season. In general, the yield impact from insufficient weed control tended to mask any effect from phytotoxic effects of herbicide.

Herbicide treatments provided broad-spectrum waterhemp, lambsquarters and redroot pigweed control. Control generally was best from soil-applied herbicides following post herbicide treatments. Post-only treatments tended to be less consistent and did not provide broad-spectrum control.

As with corn, the soybean herbicide treatments were selected based on herbicide site of action and chemical family, crop rotation restrictions and cost. There are not as many herbicide choices in soybean, compared to corn, that allow rotation to sugarbeet the following season. But, Peters notes, “the soybean herbicides used in these trials generally have no rotational impact on crops grown in the rotation, including corn or sugarbeet.”

The per-acre cost of weed control in soybean ranged from $16 (two post treatments of Cadet) to $69 (a pre and post combination of Dual Magnum + Valor / Liberty).

Peters and his colleagues plan to continue the research project for two to three more years. They’ll also be incorporating wheat into the sequence in 2015, recognizing that wheat is part of many Red River Valley rotations that include sugarbeet.

What kinds of feedback has the NDSU/UM sugarbeet weed specialist received thus far from growers on this project — his “Back to the Future” reemphasis on system-wide weed management?

Cost obviously is a major consideration — especially in a year like 2015 when commodity prices in general are down significantly. Peters is fully aware of that, but simultaneously stresses that a systems approach inherently factors in multiple years — in terms of both outlay and results. “A farmer has to be committed to spending more money if he wants to successfully implement this ‘weeds management’ approach,” he states. “For the grower who is thinking long term, that makes a lot of sense. Where we ‘get into trouble’ a bit is on rented ground and situations like that where we’re really taking only a year-to-year approach. That’s where it breaks down somewhat — at least on the economics side.”

'Zero tolerance should be our target, and we need to use all available means to achieve it.’

How does he answer the formidable economics question? “My answer is, ‘You are the farmer. You know what your budget is. You know your cost of production and what you need to plan for,’ ” Peters states. “I’m saying you may have to consider a little more money for herbicides in your plan and find other places where you can save some money.” Not everyone he’s talked with this winter is on board with his thinking, Peters admits. “Some are saying, ‘Yeah, it’s a great idea — but give me another year or two of the system I’m already using: the Roundup system. Maybe the economics will turn around by then.’ “Others, though — usually those having tough weed problems — are saying, ‘I have to do something, because what I’m doing now is not working, and I can’t afford to let it get worse.’ ” The university weed scientist knows how difficult it is to achieve 100% weed control in any crop in a given year; but, he believes, that should be the objective for sugarbeet producers. “I think the ‘zero tolerance’ threshold concept — which, again, is not a new concept — is geared at there being no threshold in sugarbeets other than complete weed control. That should be our target, and we need to use all available means to achieve it.” A key reason for setting the goal so high, Peters says, is the weed seed bank. “The problem with a weed like waterhemp is, if you have a failure, you’re going to have that seed in the seed bank for a good four years — maybe closer to six. That’s the first problem. “The second problem is that a single one of those escaped plants makes a tremendous amount of seed — more than 150,000. So you just can’t afford to have any of them going to seed. If you do, you’ll have to work even harder in the succeeding crops to clean it up.” — Don LilleboeRead our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

A production practices survey of Michigan growers attending recent winter meetings sheds new light on how the state’s sugarbeet producers are adopting research-based recommendations. At five educational meetings held in February, sponsored cooperatively by the Michigan Sugarbeet Research Education Advisory Council (REACh), Michigan Sugar Company and MSU Sugarbeet Advancement, attending growers were asked to respond to a series of questions. Nearly 200 growers provided input. Combined, their 2014 beet acreage was 54,200, which represents about one-third of last season’s entire Michigan sugarbeet acreage. The first set of questions pertained to the use of Quadris® fungicide for control of Rhizoctonia. Of the 198 growers responding, 94% indicated they use Quadris for control of this disease — a very high percentage compared to other U.S. beet growing areas, points out Steve Poindexter, senior sugarbeet extension educator for Michigan StateUniversity.

As to the method of applying Quadris, 96 of the responding growers (51%) said they used the “one-two punch” of a T-band in-furrow treatment at planting, supplemented by a foliar application at the six- to eight-leaf plant growth stage. “We’ve shown, over the past 10 to 12 years, that’s the best approach if you have bad Rhizoctonia,” Poindexter notes. “We’re covering the plant, from early on clear through [the vulnerable period].” Sixty-five (34%) of the growers indicated they used a onetime foliar application of Quadris; another 21 (11%) said they used the in-furrow treatment only. Responses to the next question — “If applying Quadris in-furrow, what is your band width?” — reflected a big shift from just a few years ago. Previously, the standard recommendation called for a seven-inch band when Quadris was sprayed in-furrow during planting, and that’s what most growers followed. “But through research conducted by Michigan Sugar Company, we’ve found we can go to a three- or four-inch band, essentially reduce the rate of Quadris by half — and still get just as good control,” Poindexter states. Growers have quickly picked up on that finding, suggest the responses at this winter’s meetings. Nearly half (46%) of those who apply Quadris infurrow said they were using a three- to four-inch band width. Another 18% indicated they were in a two- to three-inch band, while 17% said they used a band width of four to five inches. Just 14% reported a band of between five to seven inches. The next two questions at the Michigan meetings focused on nitrogen rate. “Michigan doesn’t do a soil nitrate test to make our recommendations for nitrogen,” Poindexter explains. “It’s based more on what was your previous crop. And we’ve found that when you have high-residue crops like corn or wheat stubble, the optimum N rate generally is between 150 and 175 pounds.” That was borne out by those growers answering this question: “When planting beets after high-residue crops such as corn or wheat stubble, what is your total N applied (with a 2x2 + broadcast/sidedress application)?” Eighty growers (43% of the total) said their N rate was between 126-150 pounds/acre; another 60 (32%) reported it between 151-175 pounds/acre. Twenty-two growers (12%) said they typically were in the 100- to 125-pound range, while 7% reported 176-200 pounds and the final 6% above 200 pounds. When planting beets after a lowresidue crop such as soybeans, dry beans or pickles, total N applied broke down as follows: 72 (41%) said 126-150 pounds/acre; 53 (30%) reported a rate between 100-125 pounds; and 38 (22%) indicated their total applied N was in the range of 151-175 pounds/acre. BEETCast is a weather station-based Cercospora advisory system used throughout the Michigan (and Ontario) growing region. It collects leaf wetness and temperature data to develop predictions — known as disease severity value (DSV) — for Cercospora leafspot development, thus allowing growers to be timely with their first critical fungicide application as well as any subsequent ones. Meeting respondents confirmed the widespread use of BEETCast. Eighty-seven growers (47%) said they follow BEETCast DSV intervals for timing all their fungicide applications. Another 39 (21%) said they rely on BEETCast for the timing of their first treatment; then go by the product label for timing of any subsequent spray applications. Thirty growers (16%) indicated they follow “other recommendations” for Cercospora spraying, although Poindexter points out that at least some of those “other” would consist of crop consultants who themselves follow BEETCast. Leafspot testing in Michigan has in dicated fairly widespread strobilurin resistance, Poindexter says, “and we are trying to prevent/delay further resistance with strobilurins and triazoles.” That’s why tank mixing of fungicides is being highly encouraged, the MSU educator observes. “Do you tank mix your fungicides with two different mode-of-action products?” One hundred fourteen growers (59% of those replying to the question) said they always do; another 36 (19%) said they do so more than half the time. As to why they do not tank mix Cercospora fungicides with every application, the biggest percentage attributed that decision to the poor mixing ability of certain products (e.g., EBDCs, some coppers), resulting in nozzle plugging and/or other problems. “In the last couple years, we’ve made major strides in encouraging growers to tank mix their fungicides, using two different modes of action,” Poindexter observes. “Two or three years ago, nobody was tank mixing.”

While the use of the “Tins” is common in the Upper Midwest for Cercospora management, that’s not the case in Michigan. “It’s been difficult to convince growers to use this product,” Poindexter concedes, “but we need it in there to prevent resistance from creeping in.” Among winter meeting respondents, 51 (27%) said they used a Tin product in 2014 and likewise planned to do so in 2015. However, 76 (40%) said they did not use a Tin last year, nor do they plan to do so this coming season. Part of the lag, Poindexter says, is due to numerous commercial applicators in the Michigan beet region not being willing to apply Tin products.

‘In the last couple years,we’ve made major strides in encouraging growers to tank mix their fungicides.’

In response to a “subjective” question regarding the efficacy of strobilurin fungicides like Headline and GEM, just over half said they believe the strobilurins were just as effective in 2014 as they had been in prior years, while 30% said they were uncertain. Answering a similar question about the triazoles (Inspire, Enable, Eminent, Proline, TopGuard), 166 growers (87%) believed those products were just as effective last year as in prior years. As to the number of Cercospora fungicide applications made in 2014, 114 (60%) of the respondents said “three.” Another 45 (23%) reported two applications, with 19 (10%) at four. A few were above or below that range. Finally, the 2015 Michigan winter educational meeting attendees were asked a herbicide resistance question, specifically: “Are you practicing glyphosate weed resistance management techniques (utilizing traditional herbicides) in your corn and soybean crops?” Of the 192 growers responding, 139 (72%) said, “Yes — Always.” Another 33 (17%) said they do so more than half the time, while just 13 (7%) said they have never, to date, done so. “We feel pretty good that 72% of growers are using some conventional herbicides with their corn and soybeans. That’s a good thing,” Poindexter remarks. “We believe the best place to manage glyphosate resistance is by using conventional products in corn and soybeans, because there are quite a few products available for those crops.” — Don Lilleboe

A University of Minnesota study has further documented the long-term impact of a single application of spent lime. In January, Ashok Chanda and Jason Brantner* of the University of Minnesota’s Northwest Research and Outreach Center at Crookston reported on what they found 10 years after a single application of spent lime on a field near Breckenridge, Minn. Specifically, they measured effects on (1) soil pH, (2) Aphanomyces root rot and (3) sugarbeet yield and quality a decade after treatment. In Spring 2004, as part of research on spent lime’s contribution toward managing Aphanomyces in sugarbeets, now-retired U of M plant pathologist Carol Windels and former NDSU plant pathologist Carl Bradley (currently at the University of Illinois) established a trial in that Wilkin County field north of Breckenridge. The field has very high levels of Aphanomyces, with a soil index value of 98 (100 being the highest possible level). The field’s pH registered at 6.3. Spent lime treatments — each replicated four times — went on at rates of zero, five, 10, 15 and 20 wet-weight tons per acre (zero, 2.7, 5.3, 8.0 and 10.6 dry-weight basis). Spring wheat was planted that year to allow the lime treatments to stabilize. Since then, sugarbeets have been grown in one experiment each year (2005 through 2014) in rotation with wheat, corn and soybean.Read our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

The Experiment 2 area, where sugarbeets were planted in 2014, last had beets on it in 2010; and before that, in 2006. Two Roundup Ready® varieties were planted: one being susceptible to Aphanomyces, the other rated as partially resistant. The susceptible variety was not treated with Tachigaren, whereas the partially resistant one was treated with 45 g of Tachigaren per unit. Standard fertility and production practices were followed throughout the season in order to achieve maximum sucrose yield and quality. Stand counts were made at five and seven weeks after planting, and soil samples were collected in June to test soil pH and Aphanomyces soil index values.

* Ashok Chanda and Jason Brantner are asst. professor/plant pathology and research fellow, respectively, with the University of Minnesota’s Northwest Research and Outreach Center, Crookston.

So what did the 2014 evaluations discover?

First, there were significant interactions between rate of lime and sugarbeet variety for stand at five and seven weeks after planting, Chanda and Brantner report. For the susceptible variety without Tachigaren, stand counts at seven weeks after planting were 125, 175, 201, 219 and 221 plants per 100 feet of row for zero, five, 10, 15 and 20 tons of lime, respectively. For the resistant variety treated with Tachigaren, “stands were protected, so that they were not significantly lower without lime,” they note.

Table 1 shows how the resistant (“Res.”) and susceptible (“Susc.”) varieties responded to the various lime rates in terms of Aphanomyces root rot rating, yield and recoverable sucrose per acre (RSA). “The susceptible variety showed a very strong linear response to rate of lime for all harvest parameters,” the UM researchers point out, while the resistant variety “also had a significant — but not as steep — response to lime rate for number of harvested roots, Aphanomyces root rot rating, yield and [RSA].” When it came to percent sugar, both varieties responded similarly to lime rate.

As of June 2014, 10 years after the lime application was made, soil pH in the tested site was 6.5, 7.2, 7.5, 7.9 and 8.0 in plots treated with zero, five, 10, 15 and 20 tons of lime per acre, respectively. “These pH values followed a similar trend as those measured three months after [the] lime was applied in 2004,” Chanda and Brantner report.

There was a significant reduction in Aphanomyces root rot and increased beet yield as a result of that single application a decade ago.

Aphanomyces soil index values (SIVs) were high in all plots as of 2014, but there was a significant response to the rate of lime applied in 2004. The SIVs averaged 100, 100, 100, 93 and 94 in plots with zero, five, 10, 15 and 20 tons/acre, respectively. Extractable calcium increased significantly as well with increasing rates of lime.

Conditions at Breckenridge in 2014 were conducive for early season damping- off and for root rot throughout the season, the U of M investigators note. Planting was late (May 22), and June rainfall at the nearby Wahpeton, N.D., station of NDAWN was 5.80 inches — 2.52 inches above normal. This resulted in warm, moist, favorable soils for infection by Aphanomyces. “During this period, the resistant variety was protected by Tachigaren and had good stands, regardless of lime rate,” they note. “The susceptible variety without Tachigaren, however, lost seedlings to damping off in non-limed control plots and in those plots receiving a 5.0-ton lime application.” Lower-than-normal rainfall in July allowed plants that had survived to recover; however, high rainfall in August resulted in new infections, impacting harvest parameters for both varieties. Disease pressure — both early and late in the season — resulted in significant responses to rate of lime for both varieties. The partially resistant variety with Tachigaren was better able to withstand early disease pressure, and had less yield loss without lime; that meant a less significant response to lime rate. The susceptible variety without Tachigaren, by contrast, performed very poorly without lime — but had excellent yields and recoverable sucrose as lime rate increased. The primary conclusions from the 2014 Breckenridge evaluation, Chanda and Brantner state, were as follows: First, 10 years after the application of spent lime, there was a significant reduction in Aphanomyces root rot and increased beet yields, as a result of that single application a decade ago. Second, soil pH levels initially increased with application of spent lime and have remained relatively stable for 10 years. Third, though they have fluctuated over the 10-year period since the lime was applied, soil index values (SIVs) in limed plots measured high in 2014.

On several occasions back in the summer of 2011, Jason Meyers left his farm near Grandview, Idaho, and drove about 400 miles west to central Oregon. His destination was Redmond, home of Newhouse Manufacturing Copany. There, Newhouse was building a sugarbeet top saver conceptualized by Meyers. The western Idaho producer envisioned supplying some of his area’s dairies with beet tops for their feed rations, thus generating additional value from his beet crop. And that’s exactly what has transpired for the past four years. “We can get anywhere from 15 to 22 tons of tops per acre,” Meyers says, given beet yields typically running 40 tons/acre or higher. As of the summer of 2014, local dairies were paying him around $20 a (wet) ton for the tops. “That’s loaded in a bin, and they come and get it. If I’m trucking it to a nearby dairy, it’s $25.”

That kind of economic incentive was what led Meyers to Newhouse, which has a long history of manufacturing flail shredders for various crops, straw bale choppers, mint equipment and other products. The result was Meyers’ 12-row top saver that operated for the first time during the 2011 sugarbeet harvest. Nine-inch cupped flails, rotating at just under 1,000 rpm, gather the foliage, feeding it up onto dual belt conveyors that can discharge from either side. While the unit can windrow the tops onto adjacent harvested rows, it also features a 16-foot elevator that, when lowered into place, will convey the tops up into an accompanying forage truck or cart. Two-stage controls fold the elevator back up in preparing the 24-foot-wide top saver for highway transport. “It takes us about 30 minutes to fully change it over to tongue pull,” Meyers relates.

Field speed for the top saver is typically between 5.5 to 6.0 mph. “It will ‘outrun’ any harvester we have in the field,” Meyers says. A few inches of green remain on the roots, however, so a defoliator pass is still needed before the beets are lifted. Newhouse also fabricated a straw bale chopper-blower, and straw is added to the beet tops after they’ve been hauled to the dairy. “The reason we chop straw is to help it absorb the tops’ moisture since they’re so high in moisture,” he explains. “We can load several ton bales; they’ll slowly feed while it blows and chops the straw. The blower pulverizes the straw, blowing it in to a pile. Then we dump in the beet tops, they get mixed with the straw, and it’s all packed into a pit.” Barley straw works very well, Meyers says, but he also tried some bean chaff in 2014. “Cows love bean chaff, but it has a lot of dirt in it. So I’ve started to swath my beans instead to keep the dirt out.” Meyers also uses the top saver to windrow corn stalks. “I can speed up the drum to where it just pulverizes those stalks,” he notes. With area corn commonly yielding between 250 to 300 bushels/acre, “we can have residue issues when beets follow corn,” he says. “So we need to get rid of some of the stalks. We can raise up the Newhouse shredder, windrow them — but not take off too much if we have erosion concerns. If we don’t have an erosion problem, we’ll lower the unit down, and it will ‘slick up’ the stalks to where you can hardly tell there was a corn crop there.” Dairies in the area currently are paying around $35-40 a ton for the corn stalks. — Don LilleboeRead our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

The 46th annual survey of weed control and production practices among sugarbeet growers in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota received responses from 188 growers — up slightly from the 183 who responded to the prior year’s survey questionnaire Growers in that region planted about 642,900 acres of beets in 2014, with the responding growers representing 105,950 acres, or 16% of total planted acres. Of the acres reported upon, 99% were planted to Roundup Ready® sugarbeet varieties, with the remaining 1% to conventional. Those numbers were identical to the 2013 survey. Total beet acreage treated with herbicides (taking into account multiple applications) was 236% — very similar to 2013’s 232%. (By comparison, the corresponding numbers for 2006 and 2007 — the two years just prior to the introduction of Roundup Ready (RR) beets — were 386% and 383%, respectively.)

Nortron, Dual Magnum and tank mixes of Nortron + Dual were the soil-applied herbicides used by survey respondents in 2014. Soil-applied herbicide use for all reported acreage was at 4% last year. That compares with 3% in 2013 and 2% in 2012. “When asked if they planned to use a soil-applied herbicide in the spring of 2015, 16% said yes, 58% said no, 23% were unsure” and 3% did not answer, note the survey report authors. Of those indicating “yes,” most were from the Southern Minn, Minn-Dak and American Crystal-Moorhead districts. “This is probably due to the increasing presence of waterhemp in these areas,” the authors state. The most common herbicide treatment reported by all survey respondents since 2009 has been glyphosate applied postemergence. When combined across all rates and combinations, the glyphosate post treatment was applied to 227% of all 2014 acreage reported upon (including conventional). That number in 2013 was 215%; in 2012, 192%. Glyphosate + Stinger (34% of acres treated) and glyphosate + a grass herbicide (10%) were the most frequently reported herbicide combinations by respondents planting RR sugarbeets in 2014. Stinger helps control weeds like common ragweed or volunteer RR soybeans, where the grass herbicide Select helps with volunteer RR corn. “The Roundup Ready sugarbeet system continues to be the most effective post weed control reported by growers in the history of this survey,” the authors state, noting that 56% of RR-planting respondents reported “excellent” post weed control in 2014, compared to 36% among the small number of respondents who grew conventional beets. In 2013, those numbers were 68% and 44%, respectively. From 1974 through 2010, an average of 25% of conventional beet growers reported “excellent” weed control. Among growers who reported on weed control from glyphosate alone, 63% said they had “excellent” control in 2014. That compares with 75% in 2013, 77% in 2012, 80% in 2011, 81% in 2010, 87% in 2009 — and 92% in 2008. “This declining trend of excellent weed control by respondents with RR . . . is likely an indicator of increasing levels of glyphosate-resistant weeds,” the authors point out. “Waterhemp was reported most frequently as the ‘worst weed’ problem by 37% of respondents planting RR sugarbeet in 20014,” they continue. Each year from 2008 to 2013, “none” was chosen most often for the “worst weed”designation. The take-away message, they state, is that “growers ought to closely monitor their farms for waterhemp escapes and create management strategies that do not rely upon glyphosate alone.” Here are a few more highlights from the 2014 Minnesota-Eastern North Dakota survey report:

Averaged across all counties, hand weeding was reported on 5% of beet acres last year. Renville and Chippewa counties in Minnesota and Richland and Traill counties in North Dakota each reported more than 10% hand-weeded acreage. Growers in these four counties also gave high “worst weed” ratings to waterhemp, which likely is related to their higher use of hand weeding.

For the sixth straight year, Rhizoctonia/ Aphanomyces was selected most often — 33% — by survey respondents as the “most serious production problem.” From 1999 through 2008, weeds were deemed the primary problem; but only 7% of respondents indicated so in 2014. “Weather”-related issues came in at 31% in 2014, a season with a very wet, late spring in the region.

Wheat was the most common crop to precede sugarbeets, with that being the case on 54% of reported acres in 2014. Corn preceded beets on 22% of reported acres; soybeans on 10%. Minnesota’s Chippewa and Renville countries were the only two where no beets were reported to have been planted on wheat ground.

Cover crops were seeded on 44% of respondents’ sugarbeet acreage in 2014. Barley (18%) was the most commonly reported cover crop. Respondents from Chippewa County, Minn., reported the highest rate of cover crop seeding: 88% of beet acres.

Survey responses confirmed the near-total adoption of GPS-based guidance systems by the region’s growers, as 98% of respondents said they

]]>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:14:35 GMThttp://www.sugarpub.com/features/-valuable-component-in-diverse-crop-rotationPaul Rasgorshek Doesn’t Have a Lot of Beet Acres, But They Have an Important Fit on His Idaho FarmPhoto by Don Lilleboe

Sugarbeets comprise just a small percentage of Paul Rasgorshek’s overall crop acreage — 175 acres out of a total of 5,200. But that in no way diminishes the value he places upon this crop. “Beets are very important — and profitable — for our operation. Beets have always been profitable for us,” he affirms. That, plus his strong focus on rotational diversification, affirms sugarbeets will remain on this Treasure Valley farm for plenty of years to come. Rasgorshek grew up west of Nampa, Idaho, where his now-retired father, Joe, raised beets. Paul started farming on his own nearby in 1982. Then, in 2004, he made the decision to pick up and move his operation to the less-populated Squaw Creek Canyon area several miles southwest of Nampa, near the Snake River.

The move also allowed him to expand his acreage and cropping diversity. As of 2014, along with sugarbeets, Rasgorshek Farms was growing alfalfa seed, mint, wheat, onion seed and carrot seed. Some years find beans and peas in the rotation. He also produces silage corn and hay for two local dairies. Honeybees and alfalfa leaf cutter bees pollinate the seed crops. The farm’s diversity is central to its sustainability, Paul emphasizes. But it also challenges him and his 15 employees — some of whom have worked there since the late ’80s. “It is very time consuming,” he concurs. “Just scheduling and managing irrigation is a real challenge. There’s never a dull moment; we’re pretty much ‘year-round’ farmers.” Sugarbeets typically follow alfalfa seed in the Rasgorshek rotation, with the beet ground in turn planted back to wheat. He seldom applies fertilizer for the beets. “Our soils seem to be very high in nitrogen, due to our rotation with mint and other row crops,” he says. “The alfalfa ground is pretty mellow when we come back with beets, and there’s probably some mineralization there as well. “We also have very high levels of P and K, along with the abundant nitrogen,” Rasgorshek continues. One-foot soil tests in the fall and three-foot tests in the spring guide him — and usually confirm the lack of need for applied N, P and/or K. Mint sludge from his peppermint acreage is composted at one of the dairies, which also adds liquid manure to it. “We spray [the composted sludge] on our ground where we need it,” he notes. So does all the residual N suppress sugar content? Perhaps, Rasgorshek allows — but not dramatically. “My average is still around 16.5%,” he says, “though I’d like to see it closer to 17 more often.” Not surprisingly, however, tonnage is impressive: Rasgorshek Farms averages around 44 tons per acre, year in and year out. Nematodes have always been a challenge for Rasgorshek sugarbeets — dating back decades to when he farmed northwest of Nampa. “We’ve been treating for nematodes since the ’70s,” Paul notes, relying on the now-gone Telone and Temik. Fortunately, nematode-tolerant beet seed varieties have stepped into the picture. “They’re not fully ‘resistant,’ ” he says, “but we’ve planted some under quite high infestations, and they’ve done pretty well.” Those varieties, coupled with his long rotation between beet crops, have kept the nematode issue under control.

'Our soils seem to be very high in nitrogen, due to our rotation with mint and other row crops. We also have very high levels of P and K.’

Some beet producers plant green cover crops (e.g., oilseed radish) to help suppress nematode populations, but Rasgorshek has not done so to date. Other crops’ demand for water when the radishes would need to be planted is a key reason why. “We’re still watering everything else then,” he says. Most of Rasgorshek’s row-crop irrigation is via furrow and wheel lines. “We’re on a high-lift project. We pump out of the Snake River; 550 feet is our lift,” he notes. “We also have deepwells.” He has used polyacrylamide (PAM) for a number of years to reduce sediment loss from watered rows, and he also aids watering efficiency through the use of WaterSense® monitors and neutron probes. All field wastewater is collected and recycled. “Where we farm, there’s nowhere for the water to go, anyway,” Rasgorshek observes. “It’s cheaper for us to reuse our wastewater than to pump more water from the high-lift project; plus, it’s just good stewardship.

“So we really do ‘wear out’ our water.” Since seedbeds are built in the fall, Rasgorshek doesn’t need to water up his beets the following spring. “There’s enough moisture in the beds from the winter.” Along with two applications of Roundup, the Treasure Valley grower also relies on an Eptam-Treflan treatment, harrowed in, for weed control in his beets. “With furrow irrigation, you’re always moving dirt, bringing up untreated soil,” he remarks. “So I believe the Eptam-Treflan addition really helps. Plus, we use the higher labeled rates of Roundup; we don’t cut rates.” Rasgorshek says he has not yet seen any evidence of glyphosate-resistant weeds on his farm — and he attributes that in good part to his cropping diversity and lengthy rotation.The previous owner of his current farm produced all his row crops on a 24-inch / nine-row system. While farming northwest of Nampa, Rasgorshek was on a 22-inch / 12-row regimen. “When we bought this farm, we had to buy everything,” he recounts. “I was more concerned about the equipment side of changing than I was about moving the farming operation down here. But it turned out fabulously. The 24-inch-rows / nine-row system has been phenomenal for us.” But it did require an equipment change when it came to harvesting sugarbeets. The prior owner used a five-row beet digger for his 24-inch rows. “So we would dig five rows in one pass and four rows in the next; fivefour, five-four all the way across the field,” Rasgorshek recalls of the digger he inherited. “I’d had a nine-row [defoliator], and then bought a nine-row WIC when I came out here. So then I wanted a nine-row digger because it would be more efficient.” Since his beet acreage was fairly small, however, Rasgorshek couldn’t justify the economics of purchasing a newer beet harvester. “So I chose to go with trying to build a nine-row,” he says. A talented local mechanic, who works for Rasgorshek off and on, “is quite a fabricator, so I gave him the idea and my thoughts.” They took a six-row Parma machine, half of another Parma — “and we married them together.”

Photo: Paul Rasgorshek

The resulting nine-row Rasgorshek lifter-loader has belly chain for cleaning rather than grab rolls. Nor does it have a holding tank. So he purchased a ROPA Big Bear beet cart, which aids with cleaning while also serving as a holding tank. “The Big Bear drives alongside the lifter-loader. When the semis come in, they get loaded; they don’t have to turn — and they’re gone from the field, off to the piling station” about 12 miles away. The digging speed is fairly slow: 2.5 to 2.5 mph, “and we’ve had to speed up the elevator for the tonnage we have with the nine rows,” he notes. While the belly chain and the Big Bear do a fairly good job of cleaning, Rasgorshek knows he would require grab rolls if he operated in heavier soils. “We do need a little better cleaning action in the back,” he observes. “It’s just a different concept, a different process,” he says of his uncommon harvesting system. “If we time it right, the semis never have to make a turn, except to leave the field. Having the cart nearly full, the semis come in, you dump — and away they go.

“We probably gain two to three loads a day by doing it this way.”Research also ranks high on Paul Rasgorshek’s priority list when it comes to successful sugarbeet production. Amalgamated Sugar Company has established research plots on his farm for a number of years, generating studies on a variety of production issues. “I’ve always been a big believer in the value of the plots — whether they’re here or at Ontario (Ore.) or Twin Falls,” Rasgorshek states. ‘That information is important. They’re comparing ‘apples to apples,’ and while the plot data don’t necessarily dictate what’s going to happen on a farm, they do give us very valuable guidelines. “Amalgamated’s research group is just phenomenal,” he adds. “They’re very organized and really have a lot to offer to us growers.” — Don Lilleboe

Editor’s Note:

Ten years ago, in the February 2005 issue of The Sugarbeet Grower, I asked weed scientists in several sugarbeet-producing states to select a single weed species that either (1) had become an increasingly serious problem for sugarbeet growers in their state/region within recent years, or (2) had the potential, in their opinion, to become one in the near future. I then also requested basic information on the chosen weed’s biology and recommended control measures.

The article, which proved to be a popular one, addressed the following weeds: kochia (by Robert Wilson, University of Nebraska-Scottsbluff), lanceleaf sage (by Abdel Mesbah and Stephen Miller, University of Wyoming), common lambsquarters (by Alan Dexter, North Dakota State University/ University of Minnesota), velvetleaf (by Don Morishita, University of Idaho), yellow nutsedge (by Corey Ransom, Oregon State University) and Powell amaranth (by Christy Sprague, Michigan State University).Read our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

Now, with the passage of a decade . . . and with the ensuing introduction and near-total adaptation of Roundup Ready® sugarbeets . . . and with the expansion of tolerance or resistance to glyphosate and certain other herbicides . . . , I thought it timely and appropriate to again ask sugarbeet weed scientists to weigh in on this subject.

Specifically, I asked the specialists in this group to pick one weed species that they consider to be among the “most vexing” challenges for their area’s sugarbeet producers. I then asked them to briefly address the extent of that weed’s presence and its impact on their state or region’s beet producers; to discuss how growers have been managing it to date; to outline glyphosate or other resistance issues with this weed (if applicable); and finally, to provide a brief overview of their recommendations for control of this weed.

Here, presented in no particular order, are the submitted commentaries. Given that most of these weeds are challenges in multiple states, each commentary should hold value for beet growers throughout the U.S. and Canada.

Our sincere thanks to each of these sugarbeet weed specialists for their valued cooperation!

Kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrader) By Robert Wilson* and Andrew Kniss** * University of Nebraska-Scottsbluff ** University of Wyoming

Photo: Robert Wilson / Rolling Kochia

Kochia has always been listed as one of the most problematic weeds in sugarbeets grown in western states. One kochia plant per 16 feet of sugarbeet row has the potential to reduce sugarbeet yield by 12%. The introduction of Up-Beet in the mid 1990s was hailed as the solution to kochia problems in sugarbeets. Now we find most of the kochia growing in western states is resistant to UpBeet. The approval of Roundup Ready sugarbeet in 2008 was also proclaimed to be the end of the kochia problems in sugarbeets. In 2012 and 2013, Western Sugar Cooperative ag staff in the states of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado collected seeds from kochia plants suspected of having elevated tolerance to glyphosate. In all, 71 populations of kochia were screened for tolerance to glyphosate. The effective dose of glyphosate required to control 90% of the plants in each population was determined by testing kochia plants in the greenhouse with different doses of glyphosate.

Roundup PowerMAX applied at rates up to 33 ounces per acre controlled 49% of the kochia populations, while 46% of the populations required from 34 to 99 ounces of Roundup for control. One population from Wyoming and two from Colorado required over 100 ounces of Roundup for kochia suppression. The results of this survey point out that many kochia populations have developed increased tolerance, and several have developed resistance to glyphosate. The future of kochia control in all crops depends on grower stewardship of the herbicides we presently have available. In sugarbeets, kochia control can be improved by adding Nortron at planting or tank mixing UpBeet with glyphosate; but, the most effective approach for kochia control is to suppress kochia in the crop preceding sugarbeet — which in the West is usually corn or small grains. Several experiments have shown the benefit of controlling kochia in corn on the following sugarbeet crop. If your corn weed control program allows one (1) kochia plant per 100 feet of row to survive, you can anticipate having 200 kochia plants per 100 feet of row the next year in sugarbeets. Therefore, making the investment in a robust corn weed control program (pre-emergence herbicide at planting followed by a mixture of postemergence herbicides, all having efficacy on kochia) is by far the best kochia management approach. Since kochia seed has a short life span in the soil, preventing seed production for two years can dramatically reduce kochia seed from the soil seed bank. Sugarbeets are always grown in rotation with other crops such as corn, small grains, dry beans or potatoes that allow producers to utilize herbicides other than glyphosate and to implement weed control programs that prevent kochia seed production. If you’re waiting on a new herbicide or a new genetic trait to help with kochia control, there doesn’t seem to be any “silver bullet” in the near future. Therefore, suppressing glyphosate-resistant kochia is going to require a integrated approach that relies on crop rotation, an understanding of kochia biology, and utilizing combinations of herbicides other than glyphosate that provide kochia control.

Waterhemp (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrader) By Tom Peters* and Aaron Carlson** * North Dakota State University / University of Minnesota ** North Dakota State University

Photo: Tom Peters / Waterhemp vs. Redroot Pigweed

Waterhemp has become an important weed in crop production in many regions of the country, including fields rotated to sugarbeet in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota. Waterhemp is a summer annual weed that germinates much later than other pigweed species, i.e., through mid-to late June and into July in fields in North Dakota and Minnesota. Waterhemp can germinate and emerge from the soil surface to one-half inch deep in the soil and can remain viable for at least four years in soil. A unique feature about waterhemp is that male and female flowers are on separate plants (dioecious). That is, male plants produce pollen and female plants make seed. This unique biology creates tremendous genetic diversity in populations and results in plants that are biologically and morphologically unique. It also has contributed to development of biotypes that are resistant to several families of herbicides, including ALS, triazine, PPO and glyphosate. Waterhemp’s competitive advantage is in its ability to produce tremendous quantities of seed that potentially germinate and emerge after a farmer has completed postemergence herbicide applications. A few weed escapes in “year one” can lead to a severe weed problem in a field by “year three.” The diversity of biotypes has led to populations that have differential glyphosate tolerance. Control of susceptible biotypes and failure to control more-tolerant biotypes can very quickly lead to weed shifts that will result in the Roundup Ready system being less effective or ineffective in fields planted to sugarbeet. Sugarbeet growers in Minnesota and North Dakota have relied on glyphosate for waterhemp control — not only in sugarbeet, but in other crops in the sequence. However, there now are many fields with multiple biotypes of waterhemp, ranging from susceptible biotypes to those with moderate to full resistance to glyphosate. These observations are supported by findings from our annual survey of sugarbeet growers. Growers indicating waterhemp as their worst weed has increased from 11% and 13% in 2011 and 2013, respectively, to 36% in 2014. The year 2014 marked the first time since 2009 that a single weed species was named “worst weed” by more respondents than “no weed control problem in sugarbeet.” More than 75% of the survey respondents in Traverse, Chippewa and Renville counties in Minnesota indicated waterhemp as their worst weed, highlighting its severity in southern Minnesota and the southern counties in the Red River Valley. Three waterhemp control experiments were conducted in 2014 in a field near Herman, Minn., with a uniform population of, on average, 430 waterhemp plants per square meter. The first experiment evaluated the use of a “postemergenceonly” system. Roundup PowerMAX (glyphosate) at 28 fl oz/A plus NIS and AMS controlled 77%, or 325, two- to three-inch waterhemp per square meter, suggesting there were many susceptible biotypes in the field. However, a second and third application of Roundup PowerMAX at 28 and 22 fl oz/A, respectively, did not control the remaining, partially or fully resistant waterhemp biotypes. Tank mixing Nortron (ethofumesate), Betamix (desmedipham & phenmedipham) or UpBeet (triflusulfuron) with Roundup PowerMAX improved waterhemp control; but all herbicide treatments were commercially unacceptable at harvest, indicating the need for a different strategy. The second waterhemp control experiment considered either Dual Magnum (s-metolachlor) at 1 pt/A, Outlook (dimethenamid-P) at 12 fl oz/A or Warrant at 3 pt/A in combination with Roundup PowerMAX and Nortron at 28 and 4 fl oz/A plus Destiny HC and AMS. The objective was to control the emerged one- to two-inch waterhemp with Roundup PowerMAX and Nortron and Dual Magnum, Outlook or Warrant to provide residual weed control, “lay-by.” Achieving residual control requires precipitation to activate the lay-by herbicide. This control strategy gave 73 to 92% waterhemp control at harvest, depending on herbicide, as compared to 30% waterhemp control from three applications of Roundup PowerMAX. The third experiment considered Ro-Neet SB, Norton or Dual-Magnum applied pre-emergence at planting, followed by glyphosate postemergence. Ro-Neet SB at 5.3 pt/A or Dual Magnum at 0.75 to 1 pt/A, followed by three applications of Roundup PowerMAX, provided 89 to 94% waterhemp control, compared to 70% control from Nortron at 6 pt/A followed by Roundup PowerMAX. All soil-applied herbicides followed by glyphosate provided greater waterhemp control than did three glyphosate applications. Sugarbeet injury was minor from Ro-Neet SB, Dual Magnum at 0.5 to 0.75 pt/A and Nortron. However, Dual Magnum at 1 to 2 pt/A caused either observed sugarbeet growth reduction injury and/or stand loss. Based on results from these and other waterhemp experiments in 2014, our waterhemp control strategy for sugarbeet growers is: 1. For waterhemp control on low-level infestations of biotypes that are mostly susceptible to glyphosate, apply Roundup PowerMAX at 28 fl oz/A plus Nortron at 4 fl oz/A plus Destiny HC and AMS for control of waterhemp one to two inches tall. Make repeat applications at 14- to 21-day intervals as needed, or if new weeds emerge. 2. For waterhemp control in moderate-level infestations and in fields with glyphosate-resistant biotypes, apply Dual Magnum, Warrant or Outlook in combination with Roundup PowerMAX plus Nortron plus Destiny HC and AMS when waterhemp are one to two inches tall for postemergence and lay-by (residual) control. Sugarbeet must be two-leaf or larger at application as required by the herbicide labels.

3. For waterhemp control in moderate- to heavy-level infestations, or in fields with glyphosate-resistant biotypes, apply Dual Magnum at 0.5 to 0.75 pt/A preemergence at planting (use 0.75 pt/A on higher-organic matter soils), followed by Roundup PowerMAX plus Nortron plus Destiny HC and AMS. Make repeat applications at 14- to 21-day intervals as needed, or if new weeds emerge.

Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) By Don Morishita University of Idaho

Photo: Don Morishita / Common Lambsquarters

Common lambsquarters is a ubiquitous annual weed found throughout the U.S. in irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture. It has long been a challenge to control in sugarbeets, even before the introduction of Roundup Ready beets in 2008. It also has long been known that common lambsquarters is difficult to control with glyphosate. Although it does not require the timeliness of the old Betamix and Betamix Progress applications (which started at the cotyledon stage), it is often poorly controlled with glyphosate because applicators wait too long to spray it. Since Roundup Ready beets became available, many growers have relied solely on glyphosate for controlling common lambsquarters. There are some who have used tankmix partners with glyphosate as a means of getting more-consistent control. A few years ago, when there were some legal issues that threatened the planting of Roundup Ready sugarbeets, grower-cooperatives across the country tried to prepare themselves for planting conventional beets again. As part of the planning, several thousand gallons of Betamix were purchased, and some growers have since been using it with glyphosate. Other growers — employing another mechanism of action — have used Dual Magnum, ethofumesate (Nortron SC, Ethotron, Ethofumesate SC), Eptam, Outlook, Treflan and Warrant. Of these, ethofumesate, Treflan and Warrant will most effectively control common lambsquarters. It’s important to remember, however, that these soil-active herbicides will not control emerged lambsquarters (with the exception of ethofumesate, which has some post emergence activity). Common lambsquarters and kochia have been the two weeds in Idaho of greatest concern to become resistant to glyphosate. Our studies have shown common lambsquarters is best controlled with glyphosate before this weed is more than two inches tall. We have recommended, since 2008, that growers consider tank mixing another herbicide mechanism of action with glyphosate as a resistance management strategy. However, in order to achieve the most with these tank mixtures, the herbicide partner should effectively control target weeds like common lambsquarters. This past summer, we confirmed glyphosate-resistant kochia in eastern Oregon and western Idaho. In addition, at least two common lambsquarters populations in sugarbeets are suspected as possibly resistant due to the lack of control of this species and the control of all other weeds in the same fields. Further tests are currently being conducted to determine whether these populations are resistant or at least have increased tolerance. As we have recommended in previous years to growers, there is a definite need to implement resistance management strategies for controlling common lambsquarters as well as other weeds found in sugarbeets. This means not only using other herbicides with a different mechanism of action than glyphosate; it also means using mechanical and cultural practices. Tillage to control early emerging common lambsquarters and cultivation to control lambsquarters that escaped chemical weed control are just two mechanical options. Cultural practices include rotating to crops where common lambsquarters is less competitive (such as small grains). If corn is in the rotation, there are many other herbicide choices that will effectively control this weed.

Yellow nutsedge has become a major weed problem in many agricultural fields in the Treasure Valley of eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho. Yellow nutsedge is a perennial grass-like weed belonging to the sedge family (Cyperaceae) with stem growth of from six (6) to 30 inches tall. It is characterized by an extensive underground network of thin fibrous rhizomes, feeder roots and tubers that are borne singly at the tip of some rhizomes. It has shiny leaves that are produced in sets of three at the base of the plant. The leaves are characterized by a prominent midrib and tapering gradually towards the tip. The solitary stem has a triangular (V-shaped) cross section and bears the yellow-brown flower head that consists of an umbel of radiating stalks to which seeds are borne. Seeds are not considered to be a major means of spread for yellow nutsedge.

Yellow nutsedge reproduces and is primarily dispersed by underground tubers that can survive in the soil for two to five years. Research indicates that most of the tubers are distributed in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. Tubers serve as the perennial part of the weed. Even though the tubers are small in size, they are capable of emerging from as deep as 24 inches in the soil. Yellow nutsedge is a prolific producer of tubers, especially under irrigated field conditions. It has been documented that under high-irrigation conditions, a single yellow nutsedge plant growing without competition can produce as many as 18,000 tubers in a single growth cycle. In Treasure Valley crop rotations, the gravity of yellow nutsedge problems is especially noticeable when the land is planted to onions. Onions do not provide adequate plant canopy cover to shade out yellow nutsedge, and the absence of effective pre-emergence herbicides contributes greatly to the proliferation of yellow nutsedge during the onion rotation cycle. Also, ample moisture and nitrogen help to further the growth and reproduction of yellow nutsedge. Onion yield reduction as high as 42% in highly infested fields has been recorded.

Yellow nutsedge can be a problem in sugarbeets if there is a break in the canopy cover due to disease, such as Rhizoctonia — or insect damage, including root maggot. With the advent of Roundup Ready sugarbeets, growers are able to manage yellow nutsedge using glyphosate. Growers commonly use glyphosate as a sole herbicide for weed control in sugarbeet. Research trials have indicated that tank mixing a non-ionic surfactant (NIS) with glyphosate at 1.12 kg ae/ha improves yellow nutsedge control. Growers have been advised to include other herbicide modes of action in their weed control programs in order to reduce the selection pressure on weed populations. Repeated use of the same herbicide or same mode of action could result in selection of herbicide-resistant weeds over time. Application of Nortron or Ro-Neet pre plant incorporated or prior to sugarbeet emergence can help suppress yellow nutsedge emergence. Tank mixing Outlook or Dual Magnum with glyphosate applications when sugarbeets are at the two-leaf stage would also reduce yellow nutsedge in the field. Remember that Outlook and Dual Magnum will not control yellow nutsedge that has already emerged, but will slow down yellow nutsedge spread. The key to effective management of yellow nutsedge is to control the weed in every crop grown in the rotation, including sugarbeet.

Horseweed (a.k.a. marestail) is a weed that was not on the radar for most sugarbeet growers 10 to 15 years ago. However, in the last five years this weed has been a major concern for Michigan sugarbeet growers. Extended emergence patterns and the development of resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides have made horseweed a management challenge in several crops, including Roundup Ready sugarbeet. Historically, horseweed was classified as a winter annual since the majority of seedlings (68-95%) emerged in the fall. However, more-recent studies have shown higher numbers of horseweed plants emerging in the early spring, and often emergence continues throughout the growing season. Up to 91% of horseweed that emerges in the fall can survive the winter. Most fall-germinating horseweed overwinters as a rosette and starts to bolt in the spring. The larger the rosette prior to winter, the greater the survival in the spring. Horseweed that germinates in late July and August often remains as a rosette until spring. Spring-emerging horseweed is in the rosette stage for a relatively short period of time before bolting. Once horseweed starts to bolt, it becomes more difficult to control with herbicides and tillage. Both fall- and spring-emerging horseweed tend to flower in late June/early July and begin to senescence and disperse seed in August. Horseweed produces approximately 200,000 seeds per plant. This small wind-blown seed has a feather-like attachment, like dandelion, known as a pappus. This attachment allows horseweed seed to be dispersed by wind to great distances. In fact, there have been studies that suggest horseweed seed can enter the Planetary Boundary Layer. Other studies have found that as many as 125 horseweed plants per square yard have been found 400 feet from the seed source. This dispersal mechanism makes it difficult to contain a horseweed problem once it occurs. One of the greater challenges with managing horseweed is the development of herbicide resistance. Many populations of horseweed are resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides (Group 2), glyphosate (Group 9) or a combination of both. This makes horseweed management extremely difficult, since there are very few alternative herbicide options available for control in several crops. For example, if a horseweed population has multiple resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides and glyphosate, there currently are no post emergence herbicide options for control in soybean, unless a grower chooses to plant Liberty Link soybean. As mentioned earlier, horseweed generally emerges in the fall and early spring, so tillage can often be an option for management prior to planting. The tillage pass or passes need to create uniform disturbance in the top few inches. Fall tillage alone and many of the new vertical tillage units may not be completely effective. If horseweed is bolting and gets larger size, control can also be difficult with tillage. Due to early spring emergence, we often see horseweed as more of a problem in sugarbeet planted into stale seedbed fields. However, even with spring tillage there is the possibility of horseweed emergence after sugarbeet planting. While there are no perfect options for control of this weed, horseweed is the one glyphosate-resistant weed species that we may have a better chance managing in sugarbeet. At Michigan State University, we have conducted research looking for the best methods of control for glyphosate-resistant (Group 9) horseweed in Roundup Ready sugarbeet. From this work we know that we can have good control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed with Stinger (Group 4). However, control with Stinger is rateand horseweed size-dependent. From our work, Stinger applied at 2 fl oz/A was not very effective, even if it was applied twice, two weeks apart. From the rates that we examined, 3 to 4 fl oz/A or more of Stinger applied at least twice was needed to control glyphosate-resistant horseweed. However, our best management strategy for season-long control was Stinger applied three times at 2 fl oz/A, followed by 4 fl oz/A, followed by 4 fl oz/A at the typical glyphosate application timings (two-leaf beets, six- to eight-leaf beets, and at canopy). Stinger can be tank mixed with glyphosate + AMS or applied alone.

We are continuing to examine different strategies to manage this weed.

Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) By Andrew Kniss University of Wyoming

Photo: Andrew Kniss / Redroot Pigweed

Many pigweed species can be problematic in sugarbeet fields. The most common species in western U.S. sugarbeet growing regions (Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho) is redroot pigweed, though redroot pigweed can be found in nearly all sugarbeet states. Redroot pigweed is characterized by an erect main stem that can grow up to six feet tall, and a taproot that is relatively easy to pull, compared to weeds like common lambsquarters or kochia. Redroot pigweed is so named because of the red or pink color on the taproot, but several other species of pigweed also share this trait. The flowering sections of redroot pigweed are considerably shorter in length than many other pigweeds, especially Palmer amaranth and waterhemp. There are some reports that a white or dark chevron on the leaves can be used to differentiate between pigweed species, but this is incorrect; nearly all pigweed species can have this mark on the leaves. There are several excellent university extension bulletins available to help identify pigweed species. (See the link to the Kansas bulletin at the end of this commentary.) Redroot pigweed densities of only eight plants per 100 square feet can reduce sugarbeet yield by nearly 20%, in large part due to competition for sunlight. Redroot pigweed can produce many thousands of seeds, with some reports approaching one million seeds per plant. Seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to 17 years. Optimal soil temperatures for redroot pigweed seed germination can approach 95° F, meaning it tends to emerge later in the season than many other weeds. The late emergence time is one reason redroot pigweed has continued to be problematic since the conversion to Roundup Ready sugarbeet. There currently are no confirmed cases of glyphosate-resistant redroot pigweed in the U.S. Even so, redroot pigweed has been the most common weed observed late in the season in sugarbeet fields in Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado. Roundup (and other glyphosate-based herbicides) will provide excellent control of emerged redroot pigweed. But because redroot pigweed can emerge well into June and July, a substantial number of its plants may emerge after the final glyphosate application of the season. To manage this late-season flush of redroot pigweed, there are many residual herbicides that can be applied with glyphosate between the eight-true-leaf stage of sugarbeet and canopy closure. Nortron (ethofumesate) applied postemergence can provide very good control of late-season flushes of redroot pigweed. Warrant (acetochlor) is a recently registered herbicide that can also provide good control of late-emerging redroot pigweed if tank mixed with the last application of glyphosate. It is also important for growers in the western regions to be vigilant with respect to pigweed identification. Although redroot pigweed is still the dominant pigweed species in the region, Palmer amaranth has been moving westward the last several years and has been found as far west as the Nebraska Panhandle and near Fort Collins, Colo. Palmer amaranth has been confirmed as glyphosate-resistant in most states where it has been found, so continued monitoring for this close relative is necessary. Here is the Kansas State University pigweed ID bulletin: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/s80.pdfRead our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

Growers and company personnel started the 2014 crop year with concerns about irrigation water availability due to reduced winter snowpack levels in most mountain drainages. Late-spring precipitation levels saved the day by filling most irrigation reservoirs and providing adequate river flows. Most irrigation districts had an adequate water supply for raising sugarbeets. There were 4,558 acres not planted to beets due to lack of water in respective irrigation systems.

A total of 182,786 acres were contracted, with 178,461 acres actually planted. Due to difficult spring conditions, 15,172 acres of sugarbeets had to be replanted. Those replanted acres were a significant reduction when compared to the two previous years. Growing conditions in the spring, summer and fall were conducive for good sugarbeet advancement. Minimal disease pressures associated with the favorable environmental conditions also helped set the stage for another record crop. In the end, the 2014 Amalgamated crop yielded a company average of 37.3 tons per acre and an average tare lab sugar content of 17.25%. The beets went into piles in good condition using the cleaner, cooler sugarbeet receiving guidelines. — Greg DeanRead our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

American Crystal Sugar Co.

Primary fieldwork for the 2014 American Crystal sugarbeet crop was initiated in the fall of 2013. Seedbed preparation and soil fertilization progress fared more favorably than in the previous year. A wet fall and cold winter teamed with a cool, late spring to delay planting. The average 2014 planting date was 16 days later than normal, with the last acre planted by mid-June. But despite generally unfavorable seedbed and planting conditions, stand establishment was excellent due to timely light rains and a stretch of abnormally warm temperatures during germination. This led to the highest population stand counts in recent history. Most of July and all of August were characterized by slightly below-average temperatures and rainfall. Growing conditions turned favorable for sugarbeets in late August through September with slightly above-average temperatures and near-average precipitation. Weed control was favorable in all districts, though showing continued concerning signs of herbicide-resistant weeds in locales throughout the growing region. Waterhemp and common ragweed were the primary issues. Disease pressure was generally lower than the previous crop year, with early season Aphanomyces gaining momentum early in the 2014 season. Rhizoctonia continues as a significant production threat and the season’s primary disease. Fusarium incidences were lessened by utilization of selected varietal placement. Root maggot caused significant production losses in the Drayton and East Grand Forks districts. Sugarbeet root aphids were held in check with a combination of proper varietal selection and timely rains hampering the pest’s presence. Isolated areas of wireworm and springtail were present as well. Prepile harvest began September 2 with stockpile harvest commencing on October 1. Harvest operations rolled essentially nonstop for 11 days straight. Ideal weather and lifting conditions made this one of the most expeditious harvests in company history, with 98% of the crop harvested by October 12 and no acreage left unharvested. Final crop statistics reflected the late planting’s hindering of production, with the 2014 American Crystal crop averaging just over 23 tons per acre with a below-average sugar content of 17.4%. — Tyler Grove

28th Crop Year Review

These pages contain our 28th annual sugarbeet crop year review. All North American sugarbeet production regions are represented in this series of company reports. The Sugarbeet Grower extends sincere thanks to those individuals listed for providing the report for their company.

Lantic Inc.

Planting of the 2014 Alberta beet crop began on April 14. By May 1, 70% of the crop was planted; by May 18, planting was complete. Though planting was delayed slightly, timely rains throughout April and May helped considerably with stand establishment. Unfortunately, a 19°F frost event on May 7 reduced plant populations in some areas, resulting in 1,600 acres of replant. Final plant populations averaged 171 plants per 100 feet of row in our three research sites. June was a challenging month for the crop. A severe hailstorm on June 8 affected 5,800 acres, with damage of up to 80% defoliation. A week of rain, starting June 14, supplied up to 5.0 inches of water in some areas. Fortunately, accumulated water drained from fields quickly, and only 25 acres were reported as lost. Warm weather toward the end of June assisted with canopy development, and by July 1 row closure had occurred in the majority of fields.

The remainder of the growing season was exceptional, with only a few localized hailstorms causing minor crop damage. With consumptive water use approaching 1.6 inches per week, growers were kept busy supplying irrigation water to the crop throughout July and August. September was a wet month, with a significant 3.0-inch rain event occurring on September 4. This rain, combined with a light frost (28°F) on September 10, delayed the harvesting of other crops, but did not negatively impact our sugarbeet crop. Warm temperatures rebounded and, combined with a full soil profile, contributed greatly to our above-average crop. Harvest operations commenced on October 1 and were completed by October 30. Although daytime temperatures were warm, harvest conditions could not have been better, with no interruptions from rain until October 25. Overall, 2014 was one of the best sugarbeet harvests in recent memory, as well as record setting. Southern Alberta growers produced 638,099 metric tonnes (703,383 short tons) off 22,375 acres, resulting in an average yield of 28.53 tonnes (31.45 short tons) per acre. Sugar content was 19.07% in 2014, up 0.5% over 2013 crop but 0.28% lower than our record quality crop in 2011. — Cindy Bly

Michigan Sugar Company

Wow! What a year! In contrast to our 2012 season when 60% of the beets were planted in March and all the acres were in the ground by April 15, crop year 2014 had very few acres planted in April. Our first field was planted April 11, but there was very little progress until late April/early May. We essentially planted one-third of our crop in early May, one-third in mid-May and the last third in late May/early June. Many growers were planting around Memorial Day weekend. There was not a lot of optimism at the time. We were fortunate, after planting, to have good growing conditions that created quick emergence and good stands of beets in most fields. June, July and August were good growing months with adequate and, at times, a bit excessive rainfall. At no time during the summer months were the beets under stress for any reason, and they did respond to the favorable conditions. By early August, attitudes began to change, the beets looked good, and there was some excitement about the crop size. We were actually encouraged to start our factories early.

Harvest officially started on August 29 at the Croswell factory. Bay City and Sebewaing started one week later and Caro on September 10 due to some capital project delays. Everyone was pleasantly surprised with the progress and growth of this late-planted crop. By early October, our prepile estimates for final yield were almost unbelievable. We actually put a voluntary set-aside program in place if needed. The trigger point would be 4.8 million tons, and the final date to decide was October 30. The set-aside program was never implemented, but the crop was impressive just the same. Our final numbers ended up as follows:

• Acres Harvested: 159,519

• Average Yield: 29.63 tons/acre

• Average Grower Sugar: 18.37%

• Total Tons Received: 4,727,303

This late-planted crop became the second largest crop received in Michigan Sugar history, missing the record set in 2012 by just 23,746 tons. The yield per acre is a record, beating the average yield of 29.3 tons set just two years ago in 2012.

Even better than the impressive yield is the quality of this late-planted crop. The beets harvested and received after October 20 and put into storage piles have an average sugar of 18.85% and a Clear Juice Purity of 96.25. Unbelievable!

It was a wet and difficult harvest, but the challenges of both planting and harvesting the 2014 crop are now replaced with the rewarding feeling of a job well done. — Paul Pfenninger

Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op

Minn-Dak growers began planting the 2014 crop in late April. There was a small four-day window that allowed 20% of the crop to get planted before a prolonged cool and wet period shut down further planting until late May. The balance of the crop was planted from late May into early June. Heavy rains impacted the much of the growing area during the month of June. In spite of that, very little acreage was abandoned; but yield potential was reduced significantly. July and August were good for recovery and crop growth. While July was warm and dry, August brought the return of normal moisture, which in turn boosted crop potential. Even so this crop was not in the same league as the 2012 and 2013 Minn-Dak crops. Based on reduced projected yields due to the late start, harvest was pushed back to September 17. Full harvest was under way as of 2:00 a.m. on October 2. This harvest was remarkable in that it never shut down for heat, cold or rain. Lifting conditions were ideal, and temperatures of beets going into storage were outstanding. Harvest wrapped up on October 15. In the end, Minn-Dak growers harvested 2,440,975 tons of beets from 111,002 acres. The crop averaged 22.0 tons per acre with a 17.3% sugar content, an 89.3% purity and 1.7% tare. — Tom Knudsen

Sidney Sugars, Inc.

After grower meetings were held in February, the staff began contracting for sugarbeet acres in March. We had a cold, open winter, so growers were in their fields early and began planting 10 days ahead of normal. We had timely rains and a few snowstorms, so irrigating the crop up was not necessary. Emergence was very good. Fields were spared freezing temperatures, strong winds or anything to hurt their plant stands. The crop was off to a good start. It was a good summer, with very few damaging hailstorms. Temperatures were not too harsh. Irrigation water was in good supply, and growers were able to keep the beets growing throughout the summer. Cercospora leafspot was found in most of the growing area, and fungicides were applied. Weed control was very good. The fields started turning yellow in August and continued this pattern into September. Fall brought some chilly nights and warm days, which we thought would help harvested sugar percent. The ag staff predicted a 29.2-ton-per-acre crop. If the yield results validated the estimate, it would be a record average tonnage for the Sidney growing area. We began harvest with a few receiving stations the last couple days of September. Before we could open all the stations, a storm system brought heavy rains to the majority of the beet growing areas. We were lucky that fields were very dry and soaked up the rains. We resumed harvest in a few days and ran without interruption until the end. The only factors to slow us down were strong winds and warm temperatures. The last station closed on October 25.

Sidney Sugars growers harvested 29,218 acres in 2014. A final average yield of 30.5 tons per acre exceeded the crop estimate. Probably the most exciting aspect of this crop was the excellent sugar percent delivered to us by our growers. We averaged an 18.44% sugar, a huge improvement from last year.

The factory is having an excellent run with the high-quality beets they are receiving, and great sugar production is achieved most days. Though the oil boom continues to change our area and town, Sidney Sugars has been able to find enough people to run the factory. The campaign should be finished by the middle of February. — Russ Fullmer

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Co-op

The 2014 season started out with planting being delayed until the last half of May — three to four weeks later than normal. Once the crop was planted, the weather remained challenging throughout the month of June, with continued wet conditions until the beginning of July. In some cases, replanting continued into the first days of July. The wet conditions in June, coupled with often less-than-optimal conditions at the time of planting, resulted in stands that were generally erratic and less than desired. The month of July and the first half of August were generally dry, which allowed the crop to start growing rapidly. The rain began again by mid-August, with some areas receiving up to 7.0 inches of rainfall in a single event. In some cases, the rain continued and there were areas that received over 15 inches of rainfall during the last half of August. Unfortunately, some of the replant areas drowned out for a second time. However, most of the growing area received adequate but not overwhelming rainfall during this time. We began prepile activities on September 3. Generally, weather throughout prepile and main harvest was excellent with little rain and nearly ideal temperatures. This resulted in only minimal weather shutdowns during harvest. Due to the late planting and difficult growing season, the sugar content started out low — but did climb very rapidly as the season progressed. Tonnage also started on the lower side, but grew at a near-normal pace throughout the harvest season. In the end SMBSC’s yield averaged 22.2 tons per harvested acre with sugar content of 15.86% and purity of 89.90%. While the numbers are somewhat disappointing, the crop was realistic, considering the difficult growing season it went through. — Todd Geselius

Spreckels Sugar Company

Planting in the Imperial Valley began the first week in September 2013 with high temperatures. Some growers held off planting until the temps cooled down. The North and South areas were able to get into the field and keep going. Heavy rains delayed the Central area until late September. The crop emerged very well and was off to a good start. Even the Central area had good stands after being delayed in planting. Once planting was completed, we were at 52% Roundup Ready® varieties and 48% conventional varieties. It was a little difficult to find enough herbicide for the conventional varieties to get good weed control. Weed control in the Roundup Ready varieties was excellent. Root samples taken during the season showed an average crop with just below average quality. The winter was a little warmer than normal, and we had very good crop development with virtually no nights below freezing for the first time in many years. We started harvest the 1st of April with excellent digging conditions. Temperatures were normal, and factory operations were very good. Yields and quality of the crop were just above average for the month of April with 30.83 tons per acre, sugar content of 17.44% and purity of 88.49%. May showed average yields and quality with to-date numbers of 36.49 tons, sugar content of 17.12% and purity of 88.89%. June was a little warmer than normal and showed just below average yields and average quality with to-date numbers of 40.23 tons, sugar content of 17.04% and purity of 88.91%. July was even warmer, and final yields showed an average crop of 43.42 tons, sugar content of 16.77% and purity of 88.51%. Final day of the 2014 harvest was July 27. Overall, it was a very successful harvest season for the Brawley district. The factory ran extremely well for the entire campaign, and the growers harvested and delivered a very clean crop for processing. The Brawley factory wants to thank the growers for all of their hard work to make this a successful campaign. — Ron Tharp

Western Sugar Cooperative

The 2014 crop year started off well in all Western Sugar regions — except in the Nebraska area, where 21% of the crop had to be replanted due to freezing conditions that occurred in late April. Irrigation water supplies were adequat to allow the crop to have full irrigation, and there were very few disease issues in any of the growing regions. Above-normal temperatures in October delayed the sugarbeet harvest. The majority of harvest occurred only in the early morning hours due to the warm daytime temperatures. Early harvest started on September 2, and this year’s Western Sugar harvest was completed in early November. Yields in the northern region (Billings and Lovell districts) averaged 31.0 tons per acre, with a 17.5% sugar. Nebraska averaged 28.2 tons with a 17.8% sugar and Colorado 31.7 tons with a 17.3% sugar. Beet processing is scheduled to be complete by mid- to late February. — Jerry Darnell

Wyoming Sugar Company

The 2014 crop got started about two weeks behind our traditional planting dates. Cool, wet weather and the threat of frost kept most of our growers from starting to plant their beets until the latter part of April. The year started off looking a lot like the prior year; but then the weather warmed up and we were off and running. The growing season was quite moderate. We had cooler-than-normal days and above-average precipitation for most of our season. The beet crop seemed to improve daily, which gave us higher expectations with every root sample that we pulled. In June we estimated the crop at 28 tons per acre; but by mid-September we had hopes of a 30-plus ton crop. Harvest began September 29, but it was slowed down quickly with rain. But the forecast called for warm temperatures, the ground dried up quickly, and harvest got under way again. Campaign began on October 4, and we were off and running. Then hot temperatures impeded most activity, with a shortened revamped harvest schedule. We still finished with a 29.86-ton crop before Halloween. Our sugar percentage finished at a near-record 18.32%.

Growers worked hard to deliver the beets as cool as possible, given the warm harvest conditions with which we were faced. Company staff is working hard on managing the piles, and the factory is doing a great job processing the crop. We expect to finish slice on January 15. — Myron CasdorphRead our entire issue and back issues. Click here.